If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Page 32. This is just one instance that I have heard of where the US helped supply weapons to other nations. This was part of civilians who aided England. In all I have heard the number of firearms that CIVILIANS gave and sold came to 120,000.

Then look at all the weapons and other equipment loaned and given by the governemnt:

Actually private gun ownership played a big part in the war both before US involvement and during.

Prior to the Lend-Lease program (and during its early days) there were "gun drives" across the United States held by the NRA and several other organizations where firearms and ammunition could be donated by private citizens to be given to citizens of the UK, where gun ownership was at a low and many "found weapons" such as farm implements like shovels and pitchforks, as well as spears made from umbrellas, broomsticks, kitchen knives, etc were being kept by private citizens for defense. The programs came to be after requests by Winston Churchill himself (he asked for donations in speeches, letters, news publications, etc) and over 50,000 weapons were sent in 1940 alone. Granted the UK could have done a better job of distributing the weapons; often guns were passed out with very little ammunition, or the wrong caliber all together. These weapons were given to people along with the story that they were "donated by cowboys" or "seized by the government from mobsters", and there is documentation to show that this was done both to play on common British stereotypes of the US found in popular culture, as well as to disguise the fact that gun ownership was much more common in the US from embittered citizens who felt unable to protect themselves as a result of government policies on private gun ownership. These were intended just as much for defense purposes as psychological ones; it was believed that people would feel more safe with a firearm in their home. Following the war, most of these weapons were rounded up and destroyed, and very few made it back to the US as promised.

The of course there was the very controversial "Lend-Lease" program itself, which in '41, after months of debate finally resulted in billions of dollars of supplies and equipment being sent to Allied countries in Europe and Asia, much in the form of firearms and ammunition. Russia and the UK armed citizens unable to serve in the military as militias (my god, really?) and volunteer police forces, and the latter even issued weapons to individuals for home defense. Obviously the Lend-Lease program encompassed a lot more than just guns (warplanes and food were the real focus overall) but there can be no question that weapons for non-soldiers or conscripted soldiers were something sorely lacked until donations and later, loans, came in. There are documented instances from early in the war of Russian conscripts fighting with spears and swords as their primary weapons for lack of firearms, and of Polish soldiers firing single rifles in two- and three-man teams to make use of a high ratio of men to weapons. Civilian anti-invasion preparations in the UK which resulted from the program ended up not being needed (beyond their benefits in post-war reconstruction, aid to the wounded, etc) but were of incredible psychological value to a people living in constant (and legitimate) fear.

Lastly there's the famous FP-45 "Liberator", a small stamped metal single-shot pistol designed to be airdropped with a small amount of ammunition over occupied territories for use by guerrillas and resistance fighters. Of the million or so made, only 30,000 or so were ever distributed by the US (mostly over occupied France, Greece and Monaco, where private gun ownership was also very low), but that's quite a large number weapons all things considered. Another half million were lent to the UK to do with as they saw fit. The logic behind these weapons was that they would be a "gun to get a gun", that is to say that it could be used to kill an enemy soldier and take possession of his superior equipment, then given to another fighter to do the same. There was, much like the donation program, a psychological angle as well - it was thought that occupying forces would be frightened by the sheer number of weapons dropped and the prospect that any person might very well be carrying a small, concealable weapon at any time. They were sneered at by US soldiers and US military leaders alike, and as such their effectiveness is often downplayed by US historians, but their are records of heavy and effective use throughout southern Europe.

It should come as no surprise that in Nazi-occupied territories, gun ownership was verboten (pun absolutely intended) and one of the first actions upon seizing a town or city was to use official records (such as firearm registrations and firearm ownership permits) to round up weapons owned by locals. This was done both to disarm potential resistance fighters and to arm conscripted soldiers. I'll leave aside the firearm laws enacted in Germany between 1920 and 1938; both the political right and political left in the US love to bring these up, and neither seems to ever get it right - in truth they have no bearing on what was done in occupied territory during the war. Could higher rates of private gun ownership have destroyed German forces entirely? Probably not. Could they have halted the Nazi advance? Maybe not, but who's to say; it certainly is safe to assume that it would have slowed them down.

As usual, Cockerpunk, you think you know it all, but in this instance (and in most instances in which history is discussed, it seems) you wouldn't know the facts if they bit you on the ass.

I'd ask what history books you're reading, but you tend to make it seem that you haven't any at all.

By the by, private gun ownership DID stop Hitler - he shot himself to death with his own privately owned pistol.

private gun ownership was actually never forbidden in nazi germany. it was actually encouraged until the end when the nation go desperate for bodies in the army. it is a long standing right wing myth that hitler took the guns, but he didn't. he was actually wildly popular, and had nothing to fear from private gun ownership.

that is just one of the MANY historical issues with this post.

Originally Posted by vintage

Adimiral Yamamoto himself stated he would not invade the U.S. mainland as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

which is also why despite the empire of japan not having much private gun ownership, we decided to drop the bomb instead of invade.

it happens.

Originally Posted by vintage

private gun ownership helped kick out the British in The revolutionary war and again in 1812. they were also used by the Rough Riders in the Spanish American war and (God forbid) they will be used again if the politicians every forget the other 14 amendments to the Constitution.

this is a long held american fantasy. it is well known that most private gun ownership in these days were pre-mini ball rifles, suitable for hunting, or shotguns, again suitable for hunting. while most battlefield weapons were classic smoothbores. this was because it took up to 5 minutes to reload a pre-mini-ball rifle, because until a civil war era rifle, the bullet had to shoved down the rifling, dragging the whole way. it was a tough process, and even george washington is quoted to have said, never send riflemen into combat without giving them a route to retreat.

this is why it is well known that smoothbore millitary style muskets were needed in mass by the american army, because there private guns were unsuited for combat at the time. rifles and shotguns the american public owned were just not that useful in battle against the redcoats.

sorry my mini's don't have the french ' thingy on them, you get the point.

Originally Posted by Frizzle Fry

Mustn't forget all the Colts, Henrys and Winchesters that native Americans used to defend their lands. There's a member on here who will tell you his people have used them much more recently, too, granted without firing more than a warning shot or two. In the end westward and northward expansion won out, obviously, but it wasn't exactly easy goings, that's for certain.

I recall a recent Media Scandal™ centered around a 2nd Amendment Right advocacy billboard in Colorado featuring a photograph of armed members of the Sioux nation in ceremonial dress, taken at the turn of the 19th century, with a caption that stated "Turn In Your Arms - The Government Will Take Care Of You" - similar to the phrasing of government postings during the Indian Wars. It was criticized by the mainstream media, and writers and reporters rushed out to find members of various nations who would state for the record that they found it offensive, while ignoring those who offered support or were merely unconcerned (except evil Fox news of course, who interviewed a dozen people local members of the Sioux nation who each had different beliefs and opinions).

I have difficulty understanding why the invoking of the Wounded Knee Massacre (or even just the push for Native American Disarmament) by certain groups is termed "offensive" or "exploitative" when it is a very pointed and poignant example of forced disarmament and the ensuing slaughter of unarmed civilians at the hands of a government sanctioned military group gone wild, yet members of other groups can bring up the Holocaust, Vietnam, genocide in Darfur, Armenia, the Balkans, or or even THE SAME DAMN EVENT in reference to a presidential candidate, a hiring policy at a company, an entirely dissimilar war, or something equally unrelated, and get away with it almost completely unscathed.

good example of a well armed public being utterly dominated by a larger military force. proves my point rather well.

see this is the funny thing about these kinds of threads. im actually not much of a gun control advocate. i like guns, i own them, i shoot them. of course since i do believe in some gun control, of course to the second amendment fundamentalists i am one of the enemy, but thats exactly my point.

what frustrates me, is the utter insanity used to justify guns in this country. this just basic level lack of critical thinking really does guns, gun ownership, and gun rights in this country a HUGE disservice. it cheapens gun owners, makes us look like idiots, and hurts us politically. its really sad to see it happen, over and over again. and what you guys don't seem to get, is that by being hardliners, you are actually hurting your cause more then helping. by making crazy claims like private gun ownership in the USA is the reason why we don't speak german, or Switzerland is a gun loving utopia, or that private gun ownership prevent tyranny ... it just makes you look crazy. and crazy, is easy to marginalize. and thats exactly what is happening in this country.

by being hardliners, you are actually hurting your cause more then helping.

This statement can effectively be cut and pasted into almost any political discussion nowadays. Try to propose a practical, pragmatic solution to anything and both sides accuse you of being an extremist belonging to the other.

i know, discussion and differing opinions and points of view are unwelcome when it comes to gun threads.

thank you, i plan to stay.

Not necessarily. This is an adult topic, something you have proven over and over again you are not ready to handle. Get a job, grow up a little, maybe even kiss a girl or two if you can and then in a few years you can put your big boy undies on and join the conversation.

5 minutes to ready a muzzleloader? I can fire, take a piss, eat a burger, call my wife, reload and fire well within 5 minutes. Apparently you have little knowledge of muzzle loading arms.

Civilian owned guns have been proven by every honest research group, to lower the rates of violent crime. Even the Center for Disease Control, which is notoriously anti-gun, concluded that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens lower crime rates in all categories.

I am a strong supporter of open carry. While some here have claimed it makes people feel icky and only antagonizes the cops, always fail to realize that many states allow open carry without all that drama. Best example is Arizona, where open AND concealed carry is allowed without a permit. Somehow, the "Cop Vs law-abiding-citizen-going-about-his-lawful-business" encounters and YouTube videos are non-existent there. Surprisingly, the police themselves carry openly, yet you never here someone say about them; "the bad guy is gonna shoot you first and take your gun". I rather think the bad guy really does not want to die, and indeed, leaves alone those who show that they are ready and willing to shoot them.

There is not a single gun law in the USA that will stop a bad guy from doing bad things. On the contrary, my legally carrying a gun has stopped bad guys from doing bad things.

of all the violent crimes in the USA that are commited with a firearm, how many are properly registered?

That question is...invalid. Most states do not require firearms to be registered with anyone. Colorado (where I am) does not require a licence or registration of firearms. We do go thru a state and federal background check to buy the firearm but all the checkers are aware of is if it is a long gun or if it is a pistol. No serial number or anything of that nature is sent to them. It is done electronically and can take anywhere from a few minutes to around 10 days based on the number of people in the Q.

lend lease and everything cited here has nothing to do with private gun ownership.

I will repeat myself (yet again)....I did NOT say private gun ownership....you read that into what I said. BUT since you wanted that info I posted THIS link which has an article about PRIVATE CITIZENS who donated THEIR PRIVATE FIREARMS to England to help with the war.

Not entirely invalid; Washington DC require strict compliance with registration (even long arms require registration). Chicago also comes to mind. New York is another city. All cities that have historically high crime rates. I feel confidant without knowing the laws off hand that California is probably similar.

If you want to look into these facts, check the FBI website or the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they are you best bet for researching the issue.

Not necessarily. This is an adult topic, something you have proven over and over again you are not ready to handle. Get a job, grow up a little, maybe even kiss a girl or two if you can and then in a few years you can put your big boy undies on and join the conversation.

According to Evan Nappen, Switzerland PURPOSELY hides its gun laws. The reason being that if no one knows what they are they cannot circumvent them.

Sounds familiar, are you sure that's not Massachusetts? Here, more often than not, the people enforcing the laws often don't know what they are. Keeps everyone confused and wary.

Originally Posted by BigEvil

Not necessarily. This is an adult topic, something you have proven over and over again you are not ready to handle. Get a job, grow up a little, maybe even kiss a girl or two if you can and then in a few years you can put your big boy undies on and join the conversation.

I think he's functionally illiterate as well as ignorant, at least based on his responses to my post. I've had enough laughs, g'night folks.

Not entirely invalid; Washington DC require strict compliance with registration (even long arms require registration). Chicago also comes to mind. New York is another city. All cities that have historically high crime rates. I feel confidant without knowing the laws off hand that California is probably similar.

If you want to look into these facts, check the FBI website or the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they are you best bet for researching the issue.

He asked what the statistics are for registered guns in the US...as a good chunk of the US does not register firearms it is impossible to answer that question thus making it invalid. At best you *might* be able to gestimate based on the limited registered firearms from specific disctricts.

The other part of this question that isn't addressed....of those registered firearms...hom many of those crimes are committed by the owner of the firearm and how many are committed by someone who has stolen that firearm or is in possession of the firearm without the legal owners permission.

He asked what the statistics are for registered guns in the US...as a good chunk of the US does not register firearms it is impossible to answer that question thus making it invalid. At best you *might* be able to gestimate based on the limited registered firearms from specific disctricts.

The other part of this question that isn't addressed....of those registered firearms...hom many of those crimes are committed by the owner of the firearm and how many are committed by someone who has stolen that firearm or is in possession of the firearm without the legal owners permission.

My sense of the matter would be that if it were possible to determine the number of gun related crimes where the gun used was not registered* would be a useful statistic to argue for/against mandatory registration (as the evidence may suggest) but since as our esteemed colleague Wetwrks has accurately pointed out, compulsory registration is the exception rather than the norm it would be impossible to generate an accurate figure unless you tried to extrapolate the numbers from the few jurisdictions that do require the registration of firearms.

*Assuming, of course, that the study were done in a jurisdiction that required registration and the gun used was not registered or used by someone who was not the registered owner.

well the point that I have in my head is that if I were going to go out and have intent to do any illegal activity with a firearm it sure in hell wouldnt be mine

Thing is...most criminals don't care where the gun comes from. They don't get into more trouble if the gun is theirs...they get into more trouble if the gun is stolen. The reason most criminals use guns that arn't theirs is because they have gotten into trouble before and arn't allowed to legally own a gun so they steal them, they buy them black market, they have a girlfriend buy it for them...

The anti gun crowd seems to think that registering guns, making guns harder to purchase, etc...will remove guns from the hands of criminals...but that isn't the case. Most criminals don't go thru the legal process of buying a gun. They will even specifically target police and military to get guns.

Thing is...most criminals don't care where the gun comes from. They don't get into more trouble if the gun is theirs...they get into more trouble if the gun is stolen. The reason most criminals use guns that arn't theirs is because they have gotten into trouble before and arn't allowed to legally own a gun so they steal them, they buy them black market, they have a girlfriend buy it for them...

The anti gun crowd seems to think that registering guns, making guns harder to purchase, etc...will remove guns from the hands of criminals...but that isn't the case. Most criminals don't go thru the legal process of buying a gun. They will even specifically target police and military to get guns.

And therein lies the rub, and specifically what I can't wrap my brain around concerning the anti-gun crowd. I'm not a fan of government run lists of any sort as the potential for abuse far outweighs that for good. Even more so, I can't imagine one good thing mandatory registration would accomplish other than informing the government which law abiding citizens possess firearms, which seems to me a bit unnecessary.

And therein lies the rub, and specifically what I can't wrap my brain around concerning the anti-gun crowd. I'm not a fan of government run lists of any sort as the potential for abuse far outweighs that for good. Even more so, I can't imagine one good thing mandatory registration would accomplish other than informing the government which law abiding citizens possess firearms, which seems to me a bit unnecessary.

Exactly. History proves over and over where this leads. I guess you need to know history to understand this and if the only place you get your information from is the tv or newspapers then a person like that has no place in a conversation like thi. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. Disarming law abiding citizens leads to all sorts of bad things. The government having a list of armed citizens leads to bad things. Period.

If you are truly interested in reducing gun crime and getting the illegal weapons of the streets, registration and weapons bans don't work.

According to the FBI in 2002, only 1 out of every 6 guns used in the commission of a crime was obtained legally. The links I used to have referenced are no longer valid, but I did use these numbers for a college-level research paper in 2004. As I recall, they weren't that hard to find, I really don't have the motivation to re-research all of this, since in my mind, gun control is disproven on statistics alone. When gun control laws are passed, crime rates rise, when gun control is loosened, crime goes down. It really is that simple. Take, for example, my home state of Arizona. Recently (within the past two years) a law was passed which makes it legal to carry (concealed or unconcealed. Loaded, or unloaded) just about anywhere in the state, without a license. The crime rate, which has been falling since 2000, never so much as had a hiccup after the law was passed. I, as well as many people whom I interact with, regularly carry firearms, and it really is not even noticed anymore. (except for the Californians who insist on infesting the state, like a bunch of rats leaving a sinking ship.) The funniest part of the whole process was the anti-gun yo-yos, who were concerned that the state was going to spontaneously erupt into lethal gunfire the instant the law was passed. Insisting that Arizona was going to turn back into the wild west, we were supposedly going to become homicidal maniacs with no choice but to kill each other with these evil guns, since, you know, we were carrying them around and everything. I have had the occasion to converse with many law enforcement workers (in fact I live across the street from the Mohave County Sheriff) who have absolutely no problems with, and support these sorts of laws, because it lightens their work-load tremendously. Since the law was passed, in my hometown alone, I can bring up at least 10 instances where a concealed weapon was used to stop or interrupt crimes in progress, and nobody got killed. My personal opinion is that only those people who have an illogical fear of guns are the ones who want them gone. There is not much backing their arguments besides "guns are scary". There is my two-cents. Beefy out.

Exactly. History proves over and over where this leads. I guess you need to know history to understand this and if the only place you get your information from is the tv or newspapers then a person like that has no place in a conversation like thi. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. Disarming law abiding citizens leads to all sorts of bad things. The government having a list of armed citizens leads to bad things. Period.

Dan, I suspect the crime rate hasn't fallen because of the influx of illegal aliens and all of the drug running issues. Just my guess.

I may have lost ya on the rant. The crime rate was already going down before the law was passed. It is still going down despite the influx of illegal immigrants, despite the anti-gun yoyos predictions of an radical increase in crime rates. The most cited reason local cops have given me for liking the law, is that it has allowed them to devote more manpower to other things, such as crimes committed by illegal immigrants, mexican drug cartels etc... The number of emergency calls in rural areas has dropped dramatically. These calls eat up an enormous amount of manpower, since the county I am in, Mohave County, is very large, and mostly rural. not only has the number of calls dropped, but the nature of the calls has apparently lessened in severity. The assumption is that people either aren't being victimized as much, or the people are sorting the problems out by their own means. Damn, I think I may have been sucked in. Damn you BigEvil..............Damn you to hellllll................................Let me outta this endless argument.................let me out...................